vlad from moscow

Ha, Obama has no say in this. He can't pass laws, he can only veto/accept them. He has no power other than those in laws.

There are a thing called Checks & Balances. Banning guns goes against the U.S. Constitution, Supreme Court would declare this unconstitutional as soon as it's mentioned. The only way to combat this would be for Congress to make an Amendment to the Constitution which they'd never do.

Home invassion was out of control recently. It is starting to slow I think. Why? Because more homeowners are blowing away some SOB's. Swift justice baby! You can't take guns away from bad people. Nor can you restrict them. Only good people would be limitted with gun control.

"Guns don't kill people, people kill people" is a retarded saying. Of course a gun by itself is not going to kill anyone*

No more retarded than saying "the gun killed him/her" when someone is murdered.

Disch wrote:

The point is, guns are a weapon. And a person with a weapon is more dangerous and/or more likely to kill than a person without a weapon.

Yes, guns are a weapon. So are knives, and blunt instruments. During the 80s a man killed and raped two women at knifepoint. There are cases where people have been strangled with a phone cord or killed with a weapon of convenience.

Disch wrote:

Yes, if they don't have gun they might use another weapon.. but that's side-stepping the issue. No matter how violent a person is... give them a gun and they are infinitely more dangerous than they would be without one. Even giving them a knife or chainsaw is safer than giving them a gun.

Again I reference the guy who raped and killed two women at knifepoint in the 1980s. Gun control is sidestepping the issue as most of the murders are made with illegal guns that are stolen or family member guns. Like several of the school shootings, and several cases where kids sneak and bring their parent's guns to school because they nose around and find the gun safe keys.

Remove guns and they will just go to the next weapon of convenience or learn to start making makeshift guns. Just like you can't buy high grade explosives, after several bombings with homemade bombs, they made it so stores aren't able to sell more than a set number of chemicals to make bombs (or meth for that matter). When the put those bans on stores people just started recruiting people to buy some for them or they went store jumping to get the parts. In case of meth, when they couldn't get the chemicals from stores they resorted to using the acid in car batteries as a catalyst.

Disch wrote:

* except for misfires. In fact your strawman point about standing in front of a fully-loaded gun with the safety off is something nobody who knows anything about guns would EVER do because it is extremely dangerous. Misfires are known to happen.

Besides the point. Even with safety on, a person can remove the safety and shoot you. Also, misfires are normally because someone has tweaked their gun and gave it a hair trigger or clean it without ever checking to make sure it was empty. I know one company makes their triggers so that you have to put like 3 lbs of pressure for it to even fire a round.

Disch wrote:

It's the same reason you never stand under a forklift.

Another great example of people being flawed. I was a forklift operator when I worked for Printpack Packaging and they also tell you to NEVER lift the carriage with someone on the forks, but I've seen it done numerous times at that factory and Walmart when I worked there. That was the way they would get the water and soda off the third tier at Walmart, lift a person on the lift with a palette and transfer the cases from the tier palette to the palette they are on. Printpack built a special cage with rails to lift a person, but still was breaking the safety protocol for forklifts.

Simply put remove one problem and when the person is intent on completing their act, they will find an alternative.

Not at all. Almost all murders in the 80s and early 90s were knives or a weapon of convenience. A girl I knew my senior year of high school lost her little sister when the neighbor boy snuck into their house and attempted to rape her. When the older sister woke up he grabbed a hammer that was laying near him and killed the younger sister, cracked the older sister skull, and fled when he heard their parents upstairs moving. He was ultimately caught and is currently in prison for murder with other charges due to it.

Yes, guns are a weapon. So are knives, and blunt instruments. During the 80s a man killed and raped two women at knifepoint. There are cases where people have been strangled with a phone cord or killed with a weapon of convenience.

Having access to a weapon makes it more likely the weapon will be used. So the more easily accessible we make guns, the more likely they are to be misused.

Yes you can treat any other object as a weapon, but clearly none of them are as dangerous as a gun. IE: you trust a 6 year old to be able to use a steak knife, but you'd be crazy to let your 6 year old handle a gun.

Remove guns and they will just go to the next weapon of convenience or learn to start making makeshift guns

Saying that "if you take away their guns, they'll just use something else" just doesn't hold water. If you provide someone with the means to do something, they'll be more likely to do it.

Just because criminals find a way to circumvent the law does not mean we should "give up" on trying to have laws. It's absurd.

This logic simply does not hold up when you apply it to any other topic:

- "If we make drinking and driving illegal, people are going to do it anyway, so we might as well not bother."
- "People are going to find a way to get through locked doors anyway, so we might as well sell lockpick sets."
- "People are going to find a way to escape arrest anyway, so we might as well get rid of the police dept."

For whatever reason... people only accept this as a valid point about guns. It gets laughed off for just about every other topic (and for good reason).

When the put those bans on stores people just started recruiting people to buy some for them or they went store jumping to get the parts. In case of meth, when they couldn't get the chemicals from stores they resorted to using the acid in car batteries as a catalyst.

Yes, people found a way around it. That's not in dispute here. What's in dispute is: "Is it effective?".

We both agree it's not 100% effective. The next question is, how effective was it? For your meth example... was there a drop in meth production after those bans were implemented? If yes, then that proves it was at least somewhat effective.

Just because we can't solve 100% of a problem doesn't mean we should just throw our hands up and say "oh well, nothing can be done about it!"

Also, misfires are normally because someone has tweaked their gun and gave it a hair trigger or clean it without ever checking to make sure it was empty.

I've heard stories of guns going off when in someone's car due to them hitting a bump in the road, but that's anecdotal. But yeah whatever this is a side point.

Gun Deaths Chart (Not sure how credible but thought I would post it since it includes sources at the bottom)
http://blogtruth.wordpress.com/2013/01/17/gun-stats-gun-deaths-by-category/

Other graph about the gun deaths and their type
EDIT: Noticed that my graph didn't show up. Though you can make your own and select your own categories or do as I did and sort by intent.
Make your own here http://wisqars.cdc.gov:8080/nvdrs/nvdrsDisplay.jsp

I don't really care if we have differing views on how do deal with the gun issue. I just ask that everyone not just listen to whatever political party you align yourself with (Or if you even do) and instead do the research yourself and come to your own conclusions. The information is out there if you search for it. It might take some digging but it can be found. Also try and avoid political aligned sources when finding your information.

Anything that even deals remotely with politics will be scatter with false information, misdirection, half told truths, ect. It doesn't matter if they are right or left wing they are in reality all the same when it comes trying to get the public to agree with them.

That doesn't make it inaccurate, just on a narrower subset of the populous.

Yeah, it claims those are murders in the US, but if you are ignoring a section of the US where there is murder then it throws the accuracy of the numbers off.

Sadly I can't find accurate numbers on Native American crimes because the numbers I did find said they weren't accurate for a few reasons. Out of all the crimes that take place in Native American soil, 70% are never looked into. That fact alone, according to what I have read, is why a lot of crimes happen on Native American soil (of which appears to be mostly rape).

@Disch
You are looking at murders, but I'm looking at all crimes as not all crimes end in death and congress is looking at all crimes as a reasoning to pass stricter laws (they are just using the recent murders as a pushing factor for the laws being made and passed). Since I mentioned rape earlier, I found that, between 1973 - 1982 knives are used way more in rapes than guns (but only by about 3% margin).

Disch wrote:

This logic simply does not hold up when you apply it to any other topic:

We are talking about the NRA and government who still say video games create violent killers. If we enforce and toughen laws over every person that does something then we might as well put restrictions on games so they are no longer violent just to make sure they don't really create killers. Same with movies. See what I'm getting at? Once they get the strict laws in place and nothing changes, they will move onto other things that *could* be part of the problem. This makes me think of the old Nazi poem (and it's many versions) "First they came..."

First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.

Then they came for the socialists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for me,
and there was no one left to speak for me.

You could say, in our time (with assumption the laws ever pass):
First the came for the gun owners,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a gun owner.

Then they came for the entertainment industry,
but I didn't speak out because I wasn't part of the entertainment industry.

Then they came for the game industry,
but I didn't speak out because I wasn't part of the game industry.

Then the came for me,
and there was no one left to speak for me. (indie developers of movies and games)

You are looking at murders, but I'm looking at all crimes as not all crimes end in death

Fair enough. What statistics are you looking at?

Since I mentioned rape earlier, I found that, between 1973 - 1982 knives are used way more in rapes than guns (but only by about 3% margin)

So wait... is it "way more" or is it "only 3%"? Regardless, links for these kinds of claims are always nice.

We are talking about the NRA and government who still say video games create violent killers. If we enforce and toughen laws over every person that does something then we might as well put restrictions on games so they are no longer violent just to make sure they don't really create killers. Same with movies. See what I'm getting at?

Not really. You're fabricating a slippery slope scenario.

Also, there already are restrictions on games and movies in the form of a ratings system. You can't legally buy GTA5 unless you're 18+. I actually have been carded when buying games before.

This makes me think of the old Nazi poem

And there it is. A nazi/Hitler reference.

I think that pretty much seals the deal for me. If you don't understand the difference between basic law enforcement and people getting hauled off into death camps then I really don't have anything left to say to you.

I think the primary issue in this entire argument stems from how there is no concrete evidence that reflects that in populations of the same culture, restrictions on gun rights influence the rate of crime in a situation where illegal firearms are still obtainable. Due to that and that alone, this argument will essentially lead nowhere. That, and no one cared to define what is being referred to as "crime," as seen by questions of whether it includes homicides or other crimes plus homicides, et cetera. Also, no one cared to clarify what was meant by "gun ownership restrictions" such as a simple limit to the number of guns one can own to an outright ban. In other words, the argument is destined to become nothing more than a slew of bitter emotions and resentment... which is essentially why most politicians never define those terms. It's easier to argue when there's no way to complete the argument.

Also, there already are restrictions on games and movies in the form of a ratings system. You can't legally buy GTA5 unless you're 18+. I actually have been carded when buying games before.

I'm not fabricating anything. When the Sandy Hook shootings happened the NRA held a press conference where he basically said that if they do stricter laws on guns they would have to police the movie and game industries and blamed games like Mortal Kombat and Grand Theft Auto for making violent people. Can't remember what movies he referenced, just remember they were ones I watched and liked. The restrictions he was talking about in the press conference wasn't age restrictions. He was actually saying that, basically, if the laws were passed, they would start to lobby for a governing body that would set a limit of how much adult references, gore, violence could be in a movie or game and if it exceeded it they wouldn't be made.

Disch wrote:

And there it is. A nazi/Hitler reference.

I think that pretty much seals the deal for me. If you don't understand the difference between basic law enforcement and people getting hauled off into death camps then I really don't have anything left to say to you.

*scratches head* As famous as that poem is, and has been applied to politics many a time. Though, I didn't find your reply harsh, but rather ill thought out as it looked like you hit the word 'Nazi' and replied without reading the rest. If you did read the rest then it is painfully obvious you didn't think about what was said before replying. The only reason I called it a Nazi poem was because it was about the Nazi's systematic removal of those who would oppose them. Here is a site that has a few variants and modifications according to the time period they were referencing http://www.rkdn.org/u-r-next.asp

One thing I have seen time and time again is "We have rights and the government can't take those from us!". Everyone seems to forget, those rights were written by the government and in the 90s I recall one Senator saying they are more like privileges rather than rights. If you believe conspiracy theorists or George Carlin, big business run this country and not the people.

hough, I didn't find your reply harsh, but rather ill thought out as it looked like you hit the word 'Nazi' and replied without reading the rest. If you did read the rest then it is painfully obvious you didn't think about what was said before replying.

Since the "poem" only repeats the slippery slope scenario, he didn't miss much. In this area, I'm more concerned about the ability of the police to stop you for not wearing a seat belt than I am about reasonable gun regulations.

If they would make intrastate private sales subject to the same background check requirements as retail sales in all states, it would go a long way towards making them more reasonable. Those regulations must be done at the state level though, unless one wants to whack the hornet's nest of state rights-vs-federal regulations, which makes uniformity unlikely.